dialect!lexicography!in!latvia.!

5 downloads 0 Views 2MB Size Report
Un$año$más$tarde,$le$siguió$el$diccionario$de$Maiga$Putniņa$y$Agris$ ... divulgación$científica$de$subdialectos$regionales$y$de$diccionarios$ ...
Dialectologia.!Special-issue,-IV-(2013),!123)145.!! ISSN:!2013)2247!

Received!1!May!2013.! Accepted!30!August!2013.!

! ! ! !

DIALECT!LEXICOGRAPHY!IN!LATVIA.! ACCOMPLISHMENTS!AND!OPPORTUNITIES! Liene$MARKUS/NARVILA$ Latvian$Language$Institute$of$the$University$of$Latvia$ [email protected]$ $ $ Abstract$$ The$paper$gives$an$outline$of$the$present$situation$in$Latvian$dialect$lexicography$and$explore$its$ opportunities$to$evolve$in$the$future.$The$first$complete$dictionary$of$subdialects$was$published$in$the$ 1970s:$ the$ “Dialect! dictionary! of! Ergeme”$ (1977/1983)$ by$ Silvija$ Raģe$ and$ Elga$ Kagaine.$ It$ was$ a$ predecessor$ to$ “the$ Dialect! dictionary! of! Kalupe”$ (1998)$ by$ Antoņina$ Reķēna.$ The$ first$ differential$ dictionary$ of$ subdialects$ was$ published$ in$ 2000:$ “Dialect! dictionary! of! Vainizi”$ by$ Elga$ Kagaine$ and$ Eduards$ Ādamsons.$ A$ year$ later$ a$ dictionary$ by$ Maiga$ Putniņa,$ Agris$ Timuška$ followed$ –$ the$ “The! Dialect!Comparison!Dictionary!of!Sinole”.$The$paper$examines$those$dictionaries$of$the$subdialect$of$the$ Latvian$language$that$are$linguistically$correct,$good$examples$of$compiling$subdialect$dictionaries.$The$ author$also$inspects$the$opportunities$of$development$of$Latvian$dialect$lexicography,$such$as$the$work$ of$ compiling$ new$ popular$ scientific$ dictionaries$ of$ regional$ subdialects$ and$ subject/specific$ electronic$ dictionaries$of$subdialects.$

$ Keywords$ dictionary,!lexicography,!dialect$lexicography,$dialect/subdialect$dictionary,$Latvian$language$ $ $ LA!LEXICOGRAFÍA!DIALECTAL!EN!LETONIA.!LOGROS!Y!OPORTUNIDADES! Resumen! El$artículo$ofrece$un$resumen$de$la$situación$actual$de$la$lexicografía$dialectal$en$letón$y$explora$ sus$posibilidades$de$evolución$en$el$futuro.$El$primer$diccionario$completo$sobre$subdialectos$se$publicó$ en$la$década$de$1970:$el$“Diccionario$del$dialecto$de$Ergeme”$(1977/1983)$de$Silvija$Raģe$y$Elga$Kagaine.$

123$ ©Universitat de Barcelona

Liene!MARKUS)NARVILA!

Fue$ un$ precursor$ del$ “Diccionario$ del$ dialecto$ de$ Kalupe”$ (1998)$ de$ Antoņina$ Reķēna.$ El$ primer$ diccionario$ diferencial$ del$ subdialectos$ se$ publicó$ en$ el$ 2000:$ “Diccionario$ del$ dialecto$ de$ Vainizi”$ de$ Elga$Kagaine$y$Eduards$Ādamsons.$Un$año$más$tarde,$le$siguió$el$diccionario$de$Maiga$Putniņa$y$Agris$ Timuška$/el$“Diccionario$comparativo$del$dialecto$de$Sinole”.$El$artículo$examina$los$citados$diccionarios$ de$ los$ subdialectos$ de$ la$ lengua$ letona$ que$ son$ lingüísticamente$ correctos$ y$ buenos$ ejemplos$ de$ compilación$de$diccionarios$subdialectales.$También$se$exploran$las$oportunidades$de$desarrollo$de$la$ lexicografía$ dialectal$ en$ letón,$ tales$ como$ los$ trabajos$ de$ compilación$ de$ nuevos$ diccionarios$ de$ divulgación$científica$de$subdialectos$regionales$y$de$diccionarios$electrónicos$sobre$temas$específicos$ de$los$subdialectos.$

$ Palabras!clave! diccionario,!lexicografía,!lexicografía$dialectal,$diccionario$dialectal/subdialectal,$lengua$letona$

$ $ 0.!Introduction! $ Dictionaries$ are$ an$ essential$ monument$ of$ each$ language$ with$ high$ heritage$ value.$ Especially$ it$ is$ attributed$ to$ dialect$ dictionaries,$ which$ usually$ are$ explanatory$ dictionaries$ that$ have$ the$ lexicon$ of$ one$ or$ several$ dialects$ of$ a$ certain$ language$ (Skujiņa$ et! al.$ 2007:$ 169)$ and$ those$ reflect$ the$ language$ in$ both$ synchronic$ and$ diachronic$ ways.$ German$ linguist$ M.$ Dietrich$ points$ that$ it$ is$ very$ often$ to$ be$ heard$ such$question$If!dialect!dictionaries!are!just!the!cemetery!of!words?!(Dietrich$1975:$73).$ Author$ herself$ mentions$ 5$ arguments$ against,$ which$ characterizes$ very$ well$ the$ important$ role$ of$ dialect$ dictionaries:$ 1)$ dialect$ dictionaries$ maintain$ independent$ language$ form$ [...];$ 2)$ dialect$ dictionaries$ grasp$ district$ and$ its$ culture$ [...];$ 3)$ dialect$ dictionaries$ are$ documents$ of$ the$ history;$ 4)$ dialect$ dictionary$ are$ different$ supplementary$aid$of$different$sciences$[..]$5)$dialect$dictionaries$help$to$take$care$of$ dialect$[...]$(Dietrich$1975:$73/76,$also$Friebertshäuser$1976:$5/10).$$ The$ importance$ of$ dialect$ dictionaries$ is$ also$ stressed$ by$ Russian$ linguists.$ T.$ Kolokolceva$(Т.$Колокольцева)$points$out$that$the$uniqueness$of$these$dictionaries$is$ that$ there$ is$ included$ not$ only$ linguistic$ information,$ they$ also$ consist$ of$ valuable$ folklore,$ ethnographic$ and$ history$ materials$ (Kolokolceva$ 2007),$ however$ E.$ Brisina$ (Е.$Брысина)$ emphasizes$ that$ “[...]$ dialect$ dictionaries$ is$ a$ unique$ form$ to$ maintain$

124$ ©Universitat de Barcelona

Dialectologia.!Special-issue,-IV-(2013),!123)145.!! ISSN:!2013)2247!

and$ pass$ the$ information$ about$ certain$ nation’s$ features$ of$ world$ perception$ and$ world$sense”$(Брысина$2005:$109).$ It$ must$ be$ noted$ that$ dialect$ dictionaries$ have$ a$ special$ place$ in$ the$ aspect$ of$ regional$ culture,$ because$ as$ it$ is$ pointed$ out$ by$ N.$ Labunec$ (Н.$ Лабунец):$ “[...]$ it$ is$ exactly$ dialect$ dictionaries$ that$ reflects$ the$ sources$ of$ national$ self/assurance”$ (Лабунец/e),$ as$ well$ as$ they$ accumulate$ the$ national$ memory$ of$ a$ nation,$ being$ peculiar$ barrier$ of$ the$ way$ of$ dissipation$ of$ national$ spiritual$ values$ (Богатова$ 1998:$ 119),$ they$ also$ allows$ to$ reconstruct$ traditional$ expressions$ of$ culture$ and$ material$ (Брысина$2005:$109;$also$Калиткина$2006,$12/19).$$ The$ history$ of$ dictionaries$ begun$ in$ 17th$ century$ with$ translation$ dictionaries,$ when$in$1638$there$was$the$dictionary$Lettus!of$the$court$priest$of$duke$of$Kurzeme$G.$ Mancelius,$ which$ brings$ out$ “that$ already$ in$ XVII$ century$ there$ were$ known$ existing$ dialects$ (Zemzare$ 1961:$ 37;$ also$ Jansone$ 2003:$ 64/67).$ An$ important$ role$ in$ the$ development$ of$ dialectal$ lexicography$ had$ also$ different$ semantics$ dictionaries,$ for$ example,$the$Latvian/German$dictionary$by$J.$Langijs$which$was$created$at$the$end$of$ 17th$century$with$short$description$of$Latvian$semantics$in$appendix$(E.$Blese$issued$ by$ photo$ copies$ of$ manuscript$ in$ 1936);$ the$ three$ language$ dictionary$ Polish/Latin/ Latvian$ by$ G.$ Elgers$ (Dictionariym! Polono)Latino)Lottauicum,! 1683);$ the$ Latvian/$ German$dictionary$by$K.$Firekers,$which$was$preserved$in$handwriting$(was$issued$by$ T.$ G.$ Fennels$ in$ 1997);$ German/Latvian$ and$ Latvian/German$ dictionary$ by$ J.$ Lange$ (Vollständiges!

deutsch)lettisches!

un!

lettisch)deutsches!

Lexicon,!

nach!

den!

Hauptdialecten!in!Lief)!und!Curland!ausgefertigt,$1777);$Latvian$language$lexicon$by$G.$ F.$ Stenders$ (Lettisches! Lexikon,$ 1789);$ Latvian/German$ (about$ 4000$ words)$ and$ German/Latvian$dictionary$(about$8000$words)$(Allererste!Anleitung!zum!Gebrauch!der! lettischen!Sprache!für!Deutsche,!1875)$which$was$created$and$issued$by$G.$Barze$$and$ others$(more$Zemzare$1961;$Markus/Narvila$2011).$ However$the$dictionary$traditions$in$Latvia$are$rather$old,$the$source$of$impulse$ of$the$beginning$of$dialectal$lexicography$in$Latvia$can$be$mentioned$the$beginning$of$ 20th$century,$when$there$was$Latvian!language!dictionary!(Latviešu!valodas!vārdnīca)$ created$ by$ K.$ Mīlenbahs$ &$ J.$Endzelīns$ (1923/1932)$ and$ its$ Appendix$ (1934/1946),$ which$is$considered$to$be$the$most$important$work$of$Latvian$lexicography,$as$one$of$ 125$ ©Universitat de Barcelona

Liene!MARKUS)NARVILA!

the$most$important$achievements$in$Latvian$linguistics$in$general$(Roze$1982:$78);$it$is$ the$ dictionary$ that$ cannot$ be$ put$ in$ any$ certain$ type$ of$ dictionary$ classification,$ because$ there$ are$ collected$ vocabulary$ of$ literature,$ folklore$ and$ dialects,$ there$ are$ explanation$ or$ translation$ in$ German$ language,$ information$ about$ origin,$ pronunciation,$ spelling$ and$ use.$ It$ is$ explanatory$ and$ translation,$ also$ historic$ and$ etymologic,$ also$ literary$ pronunciation$ and$ orthography,$ it$ gives$ dialect$ words$ and$ folklores,$ also$ the$ phraseology$ (Kļavina$ 2008:$ 137;$ about$ development$ of$ Latvian$ lexicography$also$Jansone$2003:$64/95).$ ! ! 1.!The!achieved!in!Latvian!dialectal!lexicography! $ Dialect$ dictionaries$ are$ one$ of$ those$ special$ dictionaries$ that$ are$ actual$ in$ modern$lexicography.$Their$main$task$is$“to$reveal$the$registration,$meaning$and$use$of$ lexeme$in$concrete$dialect$(or$dialects)”$(Kagaine$1999:$67).$ Overall$there$are$not$very$big$amount$of$dictionaries$in$Latvian$lexicography.$This$ problem$was$highlighted$by$A.$Timuška$in$1997$(Timuška$1997:$44).$In$the$beginning$of$ 21st$century$the$situation$has$changed$only$slightly$–$there$are$still$missing$different$ dialect$ lexicon$ thematic$ dictionaries,$ as$ well$ as$ dictionaries$ that$ are$ devoted$ to$ separate$ language$ features:$ dialect$ phraseology,$ stable$ word$ junctions$ and$ similar$ dictionaries.$ However$ the$ dialect$ dictionaries$ that$ are$ published$ until$ know$ contain$ bright$examples$to$be$taken$into$consideration$of$dialect$lexicography.$$ The$ first$ dialect$ dictionaries$ in$ Latvian$ lexicography$ are$ Dialect! dictionary! of! Ergeme! (Ērģemes! izloksnes! vārdnīca)! by$ E.$ Kagaine$ and$ S.$ Raģe,$ published$ at$ the$ beginning$ of$ 21st$ century$ (1977/1983),$ the! Dialect! Dictionary! of! Kalupe$ (Kalupes! izloksnes! vārdnīca)$ by$ A.$ Reķēna$ (1998)$ and$ the! Dialect! Dictionary! of! Vainizi! (Vainižu! izloksnes!vārdnīca)!by$E.$Ādamsons$and$E.$Kagaine$(2000).$In$2001$there$was$published$ the$first$aspect$dictionary$The!Dialect!Comparison!Dictionary!of!Sinole!(Sinoles!izloksnes! salīdzinājumu!vārdnīca),$which$is$devoted$to$concrete$language$feature/$comparisons.$$ The!Dialect!Dictionary!of!Ergeme!(from$now$on$DDE)$by$S.$Raģe!&$E.$Kagaine$and$ after$ its$ example$ there$ was$ created$ The! dialect! dictionary! of! Kalupe! (from$ now$ on$

126$ ©Universitat de Barcelona

Dialectologia.!Special-issue,-IV-(2013),!123)145.!! ISSN:!2013)2247!

DDK)$ by$ A.$ Reķēna$ are$ relatively$ full$ type$ dictionary,$ but$ The! Dialect! Dictionary! of! Vainizi! (from$ now$ on$ DDV)$ by$ E.$Ādamsons$ and$ E.$ Kagaine$ is$ differential$ type$ dialect$ dictionary.$ Based$ on$ criteria$ of$ word$ selection,$ the$ dialect$ dictionaries$ are$ assumed$ to$ be$ divided$in$two$in$Latvian$lexicography:$ 1) Full$type$dialect$dictionaries$ 2) Differential$type$dialect$dictionaries$$ About$full!type!dictionaries$are$considered$dictionaries$that$“contain$relatively$all$ registered$ lexicon$ in$ dialects,$ not$ separating$ specific$ lexicon$ from$ literary$ language$ word$stock”$(Kagaine$1985:$67,$also$Skujiņa$et!al.$2007:$165).$ Differential!type!dictionaries$do$not$have$all$encountered$lexicon$in$dialects,$but$ only$that$part$that$“do$not$belong$to$literary$language$or$also$semantically$differs$from$ corresponding$ literary$ language$ words”$ (Kagaine$ 1985:$ 67,$ also$ Skujiņa$ et! al.$ 2007:$ 165).$$ DDE$ is$ the$ first$ Latvian$ dialect$ dictionary,$ as$ well$ as$ important$ turn$ point$ in$ Latvian$ lexicography.$ Its$ first$ volume$ published$ in$ 1997,$ third$ volume$ in$ 1983.$ The$ importance$of$dictionary$is$pointed$out$that:$“There$are$a$rather$big$amount$in$Latvian$ language$dictionaries,$which$can$be$said$that$each$of$them$are$the$first$in$this$kind$of$ dictionary$with$Latvian$language$material$and$some$of$them$are$masterpieces.$In$1977$ there$ was$ issued$ the$ first$ volume$ for$ new$ three/volume$ dictionary,$ to$ which$ can$ be$ attributed$both$previously$mentioned$characteristics$[...]”$(Grabis$1979:$172).$$ DDE$ as$ a$ basis$ have$ entry$ system,$ but$ there$ are$ also$ separate$ nest$ system$ elements.$Nests$have:$1)$phonetic$and$morphologic$variants$of$words,$2)$person$names$ of$male$and$female$genders;$adjective;$3)$declinable$numeral$and$pronoun$male$and$ female$forms;$4)$diminutives$of$regular$formed$substantives.$ DDE$ entry$ has$ 9$ components:$ 1)$ entry$ name;$ 2)$ reference$ about$ class,$ 3)$ the$ word$ in$ dialect$ basic$ form$ with$ its$ grammatical$ forms;$ 4)$ references$ about$ the$ limitations$in$the$use$of$word;$5)$the$explanation$of$word$meaning;$6)$illustrative$text;$ 7)$ stable$ word$ collocations:$ word$ class$ titles,$ phraseologies;$ 8)$ words$ which$ with$ corresponding$ entry$ word$ have$ semantic$ equivalent$ or$ synonym$ attitude;$ 9)$ other$ words$with$the$same$stem$(about$that$Kagaine$&$Raģe$1977:$11/12,$also$picture$1).$ 127$ ©Universitat de Barcelona

Liene!MARKUS)NARVILA!

However$ DDK$ is$ one$ dialect$ relatively$ full$ type$ two/volume$ dialect$ words$ dictionary,$ which$ was$ issued$ in$ 1998.$ Also$ DDK$ has$ entry$ system$ as$ basis,$ as$ well$ as$ separate$nest$system$elements.$$ Entry$of$DDK$has$several$elements:$1)$entry$name;$2)$reference$about$word$class;$ 3)$dialect$form$of$entry$form$in$phonetic$transcript;$4)$primary$verb$person$forms$(the$ paradigm$examples$of$other$word$conjunction$are$given$in$the$description$of$separate$ dialect);$5)$adjectives$are$given$in$female$gender$form;$6)$references$about$limitations$ in$ word$ use;$ 7)$ the$ explanation$ of$ meaning;$ 8)$illustrative$ material;$ 9)$ word$ collocations,$which$semantics$directly$do$not$derive$from$word$semantics$or$which$has$ a$ stable$ characteristics$ in$ dialect,$ they$ are$ included$ in$ entry$ separately$ with$ special$ explanations$ (word$ collocations$ without$ separate$ meaning$ transfer,$ comparisons,$ word$ collocations$ (mostly$ phraseology),$ which$ have$ transfers);$ 10)$ word$ synonyms;$ 11)$creations$from$basic$lexemes$(more$Reķēna$1998,$I:$22/25;$also$Picture$2).$$ $ $ $ $ $

$

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Picture$1.$Examples$of$DDE$entries$(Kagaine$&$Raģe$1997:$286;$Kagaine$&$Raģe$1983:$163).$

$

Nevertheless$ both$ previously$ mentioned$ dictionaries$ are$ considered$ to$ be$ full$ type$dialect$dictionaries,$in$the$process$of$creating$dictionaries$very$often$it$becomes$ clear$that$it$is$not$possible$to$include$absolutely$all$word$stock,$as$well$it$is$not$even$ 128$ ©Universitat de Barcelona

Dialectologia.!Special-issue,-IV-(2013),!123)145.!! ISSN:!2013)2247!

necessary$(e.g.$if$separate$phenomenon$do$not$create$new$quality,$but$only$nuances$ already$the$existing$one),$that$is$why$there$is$certain$word$selection,$which$is$chosen$ by$dictionary$author$according$to$his/her$own$criteria.$$ This$ idea$ is$ accented$ by$ German$ linguist$ L.$ Ciller:$ none$ of$ dictionaries$ are$ complete;$there$are$missing,$for$example,$separate$compound$and$word$collocations,$ individually$ created$ word$ or$ some$ expression$ connected$ to$ certain$ field$ and$ so$ on$ (Ziller$1999:$9).$Later$similar$idea$is$said$by$H.$Haller$&$F.$Lanthaler,$pointing$out:$“With$ time$we$understood$that$the$creation$of$live$word$stock$is$as$barrel$without$bottom”$ (Haller$&$Lanthaler$2004:$7).$Also$Russian$scientists$point$that$out,$saying:$“The$object$ of$ research/$ oral$ dialect$ speech/$ it$ is$ specific,$ that$ any$ of$ dictionaries,$ including$ one$ dialect$ dictionary,$ is$ not$ ensured$ against$ word$ eliminations$ and$ imperfections”$ (Нефедова$2003:$22).$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

$

$ $ $ Picture$2:$Example$of$DDK$entry$(Reķēna,$1998$I:$616;$Reķēna,$1998,$II:$205)$

$

The! Dialect! Dictionary! of! Vainiži! (from$ now$ on$ DDV)$ by$ E.$ Ādamsons$ and$ E.$ Kagaine$differs$from$both$dictionaries$previously$mentioned,$which$is$differential$type$ dictionary,$ where$ in$ the$ dialect$ lexicon$ is$ reflected$ in$ selective$ way.$ There$ is$ that$

129$ ©Universitat de Barcelona

Liene!MARKUS)NARVILA!

lexicon$part$included$in$dictionary,$which$does$not$belong$to$Latvian$literary$language;$ in$ the$ dialect$ and$ literary$ language$ the$ common$ words$ are$ considered$ only$ those$ meanings$and$meaning$nuances,$which$have$not$been$mentioned$for$these$words$in$ Latvian$ literary$ language$ dictionary$ or$ shown$ there$ with$ limitation$ reference$ (Ādamsons$&$Kagaine$2011,$I:$IV).$$ DDV$as$well$as$DDE$and$DDK$words$are$arranged$in$entries$in$alphabetic$order$do$ not$separating$long$and$short$vowels.$In$separate$cases$there$are$word$combination$in$ nests$used$(combined$mostly$word$phonetic$and$morphologic$variants).$$ DDV$ full$ entry$ forms$ 7$ components:$ 1)$ entry$ name;$ 2)$ reference$ about$ word$ class;$ 3)$ word$ in$ dialect$ basic$ form,$ along$ with$ all$ grammatical$ forms;$ 4)$ reference$ about$limitations$in$the$use$of$word;$5)$the$explanation$of$word$meaning;$6)$illustrative$ text;$7)$stable$word$collocations$(Ādamsons$&$Kagaine,$2001$I:$VI).$$ In$ 2001$ there$ was$ the$ first$ aspect$ dictionary$ created$ in$ Latvian$ dialectal$ lexicography,$it$is$The!Dialect!Comparison!Dictionary!of!Sinole$(from$now$on$DCDS)$by$ M.$ Putniņa$ and$ A.$ Timuška.$ There$ is$ with$ lexicography$ means$ one$ certain$ language$ feature$ revealed$ in$ this$ case:$ comparisons,$ [which]$ give$ very$ rich$ fact$ material$ for$ further$ investigation,$ contrasts$ and$ comparisons$ with$ analogue$ comparative$ constructions$ in$ different$ dialects$ and$ other$ Latvian$ language$ systems...”$ (Putniņa$ &$ Timuška$ 2001:$ I).$ DCDS$ proves$ that$ also$ such$ type$ dialect$ qualities$ are$ valuable$ research$and$culture$historic$material$(also$Markus/$Narvila$2008:$154).$$ An$important$work$in$Latvian$dialect$lexicography$was$started$in$2005,$under$the$ provision$ of$ E.$ Kagaine$ there$ was$ created$ an$ edition$ Latvian! dialect! dictionary.! Prospect! (Latviešu! izlokšņu! vārdnīca.! Prospekts;$ from$ now$ on$ LDD).$ There$ are$ such$ viewpoints$for$the$LDD$to$be$created:$structure,$entry$content$and$description,$there$ are$phonetic$transcript$problems$being$solved$(Kagaine$et!al.$2005a:$5/24),$also$there$ are$ problematic$ word$ origin$ references$ (Kagaine$ 2005b:$ 235/333),$ lexeme$ variants$ (Jansone$ 2005:$ 347/351),$ homonym$ reflection$ (Bušmane$ 2005:$ 334/346)$ and$ other$ issues$being$looked$at,$as$well$as$there$are$given$entry$examples:$āda)ādstrēmele,!ait) aitvilla,! aiziet)aizieties,! ba)baņķis,! be)beicēt,! braka)brāļuoties,! buda)buķiski,! buocis) bupetskapis! (Kagaine$ and$ others$ 2005a:$ 49/314).$ This$ work$ is$ important$ step$ in$ the$ development$ of$ Latvian$ linguistics;$ LDD$ creation$ is$ acknowledged$ as$ one$ of$ the$

130$ ©Universitat de Barcelona

Dialectologia.!Special-issue,-IV-(2013),!123)145.!! ISSN:!2013)2247!

necessary$ works$ of$ Latvian$ linguistics,$ because$ “the$ saved$ up$ lexicon$ material,$ new$ dialect$words$and$their$dissemination$registrations,$as$well$as$etymologic$research$has$ created$ pre/conditions$ for$ creating$ new$ joint$ dialect$ dictionary$ [...].$ The$ necessity$ to$ create$new$dictionary$was$created$by$several$outer$conditions,$which$were$connected$ to$rapid$loss$of$older$lexicon$layers,$historic$domestic$objects$and$tools”$(Kagaine$et!al.$ 2005a:$4).$$ In$2007$there$was$issued$Latgalian!language!word!stock!(2007)$(Latgaļu$volūdas$ võrdu$krõjums)$by$A.$Bērzkalns.$There$is$mostly$given$lexeme$list$with$explanations$in$ German.$In$separate$cases$there$are$given$also$illustrative$examples$with$translations.$ But$ in$ 2009$ there$ was$ Latgalian! language! dictionary! (Latgaļu$ volūdys$ vuordneica)$ by$ A.$Slišāns,$ which$ contains$ about$ 1500$ words$ and$ which$ similarly$ to$ previously$ mentioned$ can$ be$ considered$ popular$ science.$ And$ with$ this$ it$ was$ the$ first$ popular$ science$ dialect$ dictionary$ in$ Latvian$ linguistics.$ It$ should$ be$ mentioned$ that$ these$ dictionaries$do$not$reflect$one$dialect$lexicon,$but$contains$compilation$of$wider$region$ dialect.$$ In$ 2010$ in$ web$ site$ http://www.nacionala/identitate.lv/$ there$ is$ the$ first$ thematic$ dictionary$ being$ published:$ K.$ Draviņš$ prepared$ in$ German$ and$ with$ 1964$ dated$manuscript$Dialect!word!stock!of!Stende!(Wortschatz!der!Mundart!von!Stenden),! which$ was! supplemented$ and$ edited$ by$ B.$Bušmane$ &$ A.$ Timuška.$ As$ the$ dictionary$ compilers$ point$ out:$ “Containing$ very$ different$ subjects,$ the$ work$ of$ K.$ Draviņš$ Wortschatz! der! Mundart! von! Stenden$ is$ to$ this$ moment$ the$ compilation$ of$ content$ developed$ one$ dialect$ word$ stock$ in$ this$ context$ in$ Latvian$ dialect$ lexicography.$ It$ is$ also$ one$ of$ some$ dialect$ oldest$ word$ stocks,$ because$ as$ it$ was$ pointed$ out$ by$ K.$Draviņš,$its$most$important$feature$is$formed$by$older$and$the$oldest$(it$is$since$the$ end$ of$ 19th$ centuries$ 1930s$ and$ then$ was$ born$ the$ generation$ language”$ (Draviņš$ 2010:$111).$$ Lexemes$ are$ arranged$ in$ several$ thematic$ groups:$ occupation,$ flora,$ human,$ cattle,$raising$cattle,$food,$social$life,$farming$and$others$(more$Draviņš$2010).$ New$branch$in$Latvian$dialect$lexicography$is$being$maintained$by$U.$Grīnbergs$ and$ L.$Reitere’s$ created$ Īs! ventiņ! gramatik! un! vārdnic! jeb! „bliņķs”! ventiņmēle$ (2010).$

131$ ©Universitat de Barcelona

Liene!MARKUS)NARVILA!

There$are$gathered$some$Latvian$authors$written$works$in$Liv$dialect;1$as$well$as$it$has$ included$ a$ little$ dialect$ grammar,$ after$ each$ chapter$ there$ are$ added$ also$ practical$ tasks$(for$example,$Grīnbergs$&$Reitere$2010:$12,$5,$19).$In$the$second$part$of$the$book$ there$ is$ a$ little$ dictionary$ (Grīnbergs$ &$ Reitere$ 2010:$ 23/47)$ $ where$ there$ are$ words$ arranged$ according$ to$ thematic$ groups,$ for$ example,$ All! around! the! man,! Nature,! Beautiful!words,$$as$well$as$separate$expressions$in$dialect$are$included.$However$it$is$ possible$ to$ notice$ some$ linguistic$ and$ orthographic$ inaccuracies,$ it$ should$ be$ noted$ that$ this$ little$ dictionary$ is$ an$ important$ contribution$ in$ Latvian$ dialect$ lexicography,$ because$ it$ is$ the$ first$ popular$ science$ (also$ one$ of$ the$ first$ thematic)$ dialect$ dictionaries,$which$represent$culture$historic$district$of$Kurzeme.$$ In$ 2011$ there$ was$ published$ another$ dictionary$ of$ dialect$ of$ Eastern$ part$ of$ Latvia$ Latvian)Latgalian! dictionary! (Latgaliešu)latviešu! vārdnīca.! Vīna! cylvāka! specvuorduojs)$by$V.$Lukaševičs,$where$there$are$gathered$4000$words.$Author$himself$ shows$that$it$is$popular$science$dictionary,$because$author$created$it$as$an$enthusiast,$ not$as$linguist,$it$is$also$not$a$certain$dialect$dictionary,$but$it$reflects$compiler’s$“inter/ dialects”$compilation$(about$it,$see$Magazeins$2011:$15/16).$ Latgalian$ dialect$ lexicon$ is$ included$ in$ electronic$ dictionary$ Latvian)Latgalian! dictionary! (Latviešu)latgaliešu! vārdnīca),! which$ work$ version$ was$ published$ in$ 2012$ (available$ online$ http://vuordineica.lv/),$ but$ which$ is$ still$ being$ added$ up$ with$ new$ lexemes.$ It$ is$ special$ with$ that$ it$ is$ the$ first$ electronic$ dialect$ dictionary$ in$ Latvian$ dialect$ lexicography,$ as$ well$ as$ there$ the$ entry$ word$ is$ written$ in$ Latvian$ literary$ language,$but$translation$is$given$in$the$dialect$of$Eastern$part$of$Latvia$in$Latgalian,$as$ well$as$there$are$given$additionally$word$registrations$in$different$literary$or$linguistic$ materials.$

At$

the$

moment$

there$

are$

included$

21270$

words$

(more$

http://vuordineica.lv/).$$$ Attention$ is$ being$ drawn$ to$ dictionaries,$ which$ aim$ is$ not$ to$ become$ dialect$ dictionaries,$ but$ where$ there$ is$ dialect$ lexicon$ included.$ One$ of$ such$ dictionaries$ in$ Latvian$ linguistics$ is$ eclectic$ non/academic$ Latvian! language! dictionary! or! district! dictionary! (Neakadēmiskā! latviešu! valodas! vārdnīca! jeb! novadu! vārdene)! (2007)$ by$ J.$ 1

$Liv$ dialect$ is$ one$ of$ three$ Latvian$ language$ dialects.$ Liv$ dialect$ is$ characterized$ with$ a$ strong$ Liv$ language$ substrate:$ the$ end$ syllables$ and$ suffix$ syllables$ are$ shortened,$ the$ same$ as$ languages,$ there$ are$not$grammatical$gender$[...]$(Skujina$et!al.$2007:$214).$

132$ ©Universitat de Barcelona

Dialectologia.!Special-issue,-IV-(2013),!123)145.!! ISSN:!2013)2247!

Kursīte.$As$it$is$mentioned$by$Dz.$Hirša$this:$“dictionary$is$a$value$because$firstly$it$is$an$ intelligent$person’s$point$of$view$on$language$and$secondly$lexemes$are$activated$even$ to$ linguistic$ products$ value,$ which$ gives$ its$ own$ contribution$ in$ Latvian$ language$ in$ language$market”$(Hirša$2007:$2).$ J.$ Kursīte$ accents$ the$ peculiarities$ of$ her$ dictionary$ by$ writing:$ “In$ academic$ dictionary$all$dots$should$be$put$on$all$letters$“i”.$Non/$academic$dictionaries$in$some$ places$can$be$left$out$without$dots$on$“i”,$but$also$deliberately$not$included.$[...]$$At$ the$ same$ time$ this$ is$ not$ a$ literary$ language$ dictionary,$ but$ also$ it$ is$ not$ dialect$ dictionary”$(Kursīte$2007:$5).$$ In$ 2009$ J.$ Kursīte’s$ Tautlietu! vārdene$ (2009)$ is$ being$ published,$ where$ all$ is$ included$that$can$be$attributed$to$nation’s$traditions$in$very$different$ways:$1)$spiritual$ conceptions,$2)$material$conceptions,$3)$social$and$family,$material$conceptions$(more$ Kursīte$2009:$6/8).$$ However$there$is$already$a$lot$done$in$Latvian$lexicography,$in$the$nearest$future$ it$ seems$ there$ should$ be$ focusing$ on$ both$ formation$ of$ one$ dialect$ (some$ villages)$ dictionaries,$as$well$as$popular$science$dictionaries$should$be$created,$because$there$ are$ tasks$ to$ be$ done$ easier$ and$ faster,$ as$ well$ as$ it$ should$ be$ worked$ parallel$ of$ creation$of$dialect$dictionaries.! ! ! 2.!The!future!perspectives!of!Latvian!language!lexicography! $ In$the$world$there$are$old$traditions$of$dialect$dictionaries,$dialect$dictionaries$in$ Europe$ have$ been$ encountered$ at$ least$ since$ 17th$ century,$ where$ there$ was$ issued$ The! dictionary! of! Bavaria$ (Glossarium! Bavaricum,$ 1689),$ which$ is$ not$ only$ the$ beginning$of$Bavaria$dialectology,$but$it$is$as$well$one$of$the$oldest$dialect$dictionaries$ in$ German$ speaking$ region$ (Niebaum$ 1979:$ 345;$ Bayern$ als$ Vorreiter..$ 1997/98:$ 6;$ Löffler$2009:$15/17).$$ Latvian$ dialect$ lexicography$ does$ not$ have$ such$ rich$ roots;$ it$ has$ several$ development$possibilities,$which$can$be$promoted$by$the$experience$of$foreign$dialect$ lexicography$(also$Markus/$Narvila$2012:$107/130).$$ 133$ ©Universitat de Barcelona

Liene!MARKUS)NARVILA!

While$looking$at$dialect$dictionaries,$that$were$created$abroad,$it$is$possible$to$ conclude$that$their$differences$can$be$characterized,$according$to$different$criteria$are$ used$ as$ such$ characteristics$ as$ lexical$ material$ quantity$ (lingvo$ statistics),$ geographic$ criteria,$social$criteria/$the$amount$of$story$tellers,$their$relative$bonds$and$so$on.$ Frequently$the$connection$of$several$mentioned$criteria$are$used$in$dictionaries.$ An$ important$ role$ in$ dialect$ lexicography$ should$ be$ given$ to$ Diaspora$ or$ language$ island$ dictionaries,$ which$ are$ actual$ research$ object,$ e.g.$ in$ Austrian$ and$ German$ lexicography.$ Also$ Latvian$ linguistics$ can$ be$ talked$ about$ Diaspora$ language$ research$ and$ creation$ of$ dictionaries,$ this$ issue$ is$ actual,$ for$ example,$ in$ Sventoji,$ Butinge$ (since$ 1921,$ March$ 20,$ this$ territory$ is$ included$ in$ Lithuania$ according$ to$ Latvia/$Lithuania$border$convention)$or$connected$to$Latvian$language$being$spoken$in$ Siberia.$ Separate$ language$ compilations$ in$ small$ dictionaries$ could$ be$ made$ also$ among$Latvians$living$in$the$USA,$Australia,$Germany,$and$Sweden.$ Special$ interest$ about$ such$ type$ of$ dictionaries$ is$ created$ also$ from$ sociolinguistic$point$of$view$in$connection$to$the$inclusion$of$inhabitants$in$new$society$ and$ dialect$ functions$ in$ it,$ as$ well$ as$ its$ different$ social$ factors$ influence$ on$ dialect:$ inhabitants$ integration$ in$ local$ society,$ its$ unanimity,$ religious$ and$ culture$ life$ traditions$and$so$on.$ The$ compiler$ of$ the$ dictionary$ has$ the$ possibility$ to$ choose$ also$ completely$ different,$peculiar$and$individual$way,$how$it$is$being$done$by$J.$Korolova.$Author$has$ created$ one$ family$ dictionary$ (Диалектный! словарь! одной! семьи,! 2000).$ In$ the$ mentioned$ dictionary$ the$ story$ tellers$ were$ her$ family/$ grandmother,$ grandfather,$ brother,$godmother$and$her$husband$(Королëва$2000,$I:$5).$Usually$in$the$creation$of$ dictionary$ wider$ amount$ of$ story$ tellers$ are$ questioned,$ although$ also$ a$ family$ language$as$the$main$source$was$used$for$more$than$one$lexicography$work$(Laumane$ 2004,$ 200).$ The$ created$ dictionary$ by$ J.$ Korolova$ is$ special$ also$ with$ that$ there$ unlimitedly$ was$ used$ place$ names$ and$ onomastics$ lexicon,$ as$ well$ as$ there$ are$ used$ folklore$materials$(proverbs,$sayings,$riddles$and$others).$It$was$important$for$author$ to$ include$ in$ this$ dictionary$ also$ religious$ lexicon$ and$ all$ noticed$ phrasal$ verbs$ and$ comparison$structures$(Королëва$1999:$99/102;$Королëва$2000,$I:$8/13).$

134$ ©Universitat de Barcelona

Dialectologia.!Special-issue,-IV-(2013),!123)145.!! ISSN:!2013)2247!

Taking$ into$ account$ the$ peculiarities$ of$ Latvian$ geopolicy,$ also$ life$ dynamics$ of$ 20/21st$centuries$and$other$tendencies,$in$the$viewpoint$of$Latvian$researchers$could$ be$also$idiolect$research,$which$in$21st$century$is$actual$in$Russia;$there$were$created$ several$ idiolect$ dictionaries,$ e.g.$ The! Dialect! Dictionary! of! Personality! (Диалектный! словарь! личности,$ 1971)! by$ V.$Timofejeva,$ The! Dialect! Personality! Dictionary! (Словарь!диалектной!личности,$2000)$by$V.$Lutikova$and$others$(more$Диалектные$ (областные)$словари;$Ηефедова$2008:$44/45).$Also$E.$Nefedova$mentions$that:$“the$ necessity$ to$ set$ research$ modern$ dialect$ dynamics,$ sources,$ resources$ and$ varying$ means$ in$ the$ foreground$ if$ linguistic$ research$ promotes$ idiolect$ carrier”$ (Ηефедова$ 2008:$44).$This$and$similar$type$of$dictionaries$as$basics$offer$expressivity,$e.g.$in$The! Dialect! personality! expressive! dictionary$ (Экспресивный! словарь! диалектной! личности,$ 2001)$ by$ E.$ Nefedova,$ was$ included$ about$ 1400$ expressive$ units,$ out$ of$ which$more$than$300$are$individual$creations$(Ηефедова$2001:$2).$ In$Latvia$such$dictionaries$could$be$actual$for$researchers,$because$it$gives$new$ research$possibilities;$also$to$society$it$reveals$the$importance$of$each$individual$in$the$ research$of$local$dialect.$ The$ compilers$ of$ dictionaries$ are$ looking$ for$ peculiar$ midways$ and$ combines$ several$criteria$or$trying$to$find$new,$unprecedented$approach$to$dialect$lexicography.$ It$ is$ proved$ by$ several$ dictionary$ titles$ and$ also$ lexicon$ selected$ for$ dictionary,$ for$ example,$ The! dictionary! of! Pskov! district! with! historic! data! (Псковский! областной! словарь! с! историческими! данными,$ 1967/2008),$ which$ is$ full$ type$ regional$ historic$ dictionary$ (Псковский$ областной$ словарь..! 1967:$ 6,$ 7).$ Such$ compromise$ is$ being$ searched$by$the$authors$of$The!dictionary!of!Turava!(Τураўскi$слоўнiк$1982/1987)$and$ they$point$out$traditional$lexicon$full$dictionary$(Τураўскi$слоўнiк$1982:$5,$9,$16).$$ Similar$ is$ B.$ Sychta’s$ Dictionary! of! Koceva! in! nation! culture! light! (Słownictwo! Kociewskie!na!tle!kultury!ludowej,!1980).$There$are$included$typical$words$for$districts,$ also$wide$range$of$additional$materials$−$poems$written$in$dialects,$saying,$and$riddles$ and$so$on.$ Foreign$ linguists$ specially$ accent$ the$ role$ of$ thematic$ dictionary$ in$ dialect$ lexicography$ (also$ Ананьева$ 2006:$ 9/16);$ there$ have$ been$ issued$ different$ thematic$ dictionaries,$ for$ example,$ H.$ Gel$ have$ prepared$ Dictionary! of! the! titles! of! clothes! 135$ ©Universitat de Barcelona

Liene!MARKUS)NARVILA!

creating!

of!

Danube!

Swabians!

(Wörterbuch!

der!

donauschwäbischen!

Bekleidungsgewerbe,$ 2005)$ and$ others.$ There$ were$ such$ dictionaries$ created$ in$ Russian$ lexicography$ The! meteorological! lexicon! of! Orlov! dialects$ (Словарь! метеорологической! лексики! Орловских! говоров,$ 1997),! The! dialect! dictionary! of! Orlov! (Словарь! Орловских! говоров,$ 1989/1996),$ that$ was$ issued$ in$ five$ volumes.$ Dialect!thematic!dictionary!of!Tver!district!(Тематический!словарь!говоров!Тверской! области,$ 2003/2006),$ where$ lexicon$ was$ collected$ in$ more$ than$ 20$ thematic$ groups$ and$160$sub$groups$((Тематический$словарь..,$2003:$5)$and$others.$ In$ Latvian$ lexicography$ until$ now$ this$ function$ was$ done$ by$ separate$ monographs,$ where$ there$ were$ given$ word$ explanations,$ illustrative$ examples,$ given$ the$ registration$ place$ of$ lexeme$ and$ so$ on,$ for$ example,$ Fish! names! in! Latvian! language! (Zivju$ nosaukumi$ latviešu$ valodā,$ 1973)$ by$ B.$ Laumane,$ Craft! lexicon! in! different!dialects!of!the!South!of!Latgale!and!its!connection!to!corresponding!titles!in! Slavic! language! (Amatniecības! leksika! dažās! Latgales! dienvidu! izloksnēs! un! tās! sakari! ar! atbilstošajiem! nosaukumiem! slāvu! valodās,$ 1975)$ by$ A.$ Reķēna,$ Latvian! language! flora!titles!(Latviešu!valodas!augu!nosaukumi,!2003)$by$A.$Ozola,$I.$Ēdelmane,$Golden! rain!was!falling!gently!(Smalki$lija$zelta$lietus,$2007)$by$B.$Laumane,$Dairy!titles.!Dairy! products!in!Latvian!language!(Piena!vārdi.!Piena!produktu!nosaukumi!latviešu!valodā,$ 2007)$ by$ B.$Bušmane,$ Fence! titles! in! Latvian! language! (Žogu! nosaukumi! latviešu! valodas! izloksnēs,! 2008)$ by$ I.$ Kurzemniece.$ The$ creation$ of$ thematic$ dictionaries$ in$ Latvian$language$should$be$actualized$and$intensified,$it$is$pointed$out$by$B.$Bušmane:$ “In$Latvian$dialect$lexicography$along$there$are$combined$dialect$dictionaries,$separate$ dialect,$ respective$ dialect$ group$ dictionary$ elaboration$ would$ be$ preferable$ to$ aggregate$ the$ dialect,$ resp.$ Dialect$ qualities$ in$ lexical$ thematic$ groups”$ (Bušmane,$ Hirša$et!al.$2009:$155).$$ Similar$also$including$aspect$dictionaries.$In$Latvian$lexicography$this$given$field$ is$represented$by$M.$Putniņa$and$A.$Timuška’s$Dialect!comparison!dictionary!of!Sinole! (2001,$ about$ it$ previously$ L.M/N).$ Broad$ experience$ there$ is$ of$ these$ dictionaries$ in$ Russian,$ German$ dialect$ lexicography,$ comp.$ Dictionaries:$ Dialect! Phraseology! dictionary! of! Siberia! Russian! (Фразеологический! словарь! русских! говоров! Сибири,$ 1983),$ where$ there$ is$ included$ 7000$ phraseology$ units$ from$ which$ the$ main$ part$

136$ ©Universitat de Barcelona

Dialectologia.!Special-issue,-IV-(2013),!123)145.!! ISSN:!2013)2247!

creates$individual$phraseology$(Федоров$и.$д.$1983:$3,$4);$A.$Aņikins$(А.$Аникин)$$has$ prepared$ the$ dictionary$ of$ about$ 4000$ entries$ Siberia! dialect! etymology! dictionary:! loans! from! the! Urals,! the! Altai,! Paleo! Asia! (Этимологический! словарь! русских! диалектов! Сибири:! Заимствования! из! уральских,! алтайских! и! палеоазиатских! языков,$ 1997,$ repeated$ edition$ 2000),$ which$ was$ the$ first$ finished$ etymology$ dictionary$ in$ East$ Slavic$ lexicography$ (Журавлев$ 2001a:$ 250);$ K.$Demidova$ (K.$Демидова)$ has$ prepared$ The! systematic! dialect! dictionary! of! everyday! cultural! words’!titles!of!Sverdlovska!district’s!Talica!region$(Системный!словарь!предметно) обиходнoй! лексики! говоров! Талицкого! района! Свердловской! области,$ 1986),$ there$ are$ words$ included,$ that$ are$ referred$ to$ 12$ thematic$ groups:$ clothes,$ fruit,$ healing$ plants,$ vegetables,$ indoor$ plants,$ materials,$ weeds,$ berries,$ food,$ wild$ plants$ that$can$be$used$as$food,$dishes,$water$plants$(Демидова$1986:$10).$ There$ are$ such$ dictionaries$ in$ German$ speaking$ countries$ lexicography,$ for$ example,$M.$Mongold’s$Inverse!dictionary!of!Saarbrucken:!rhyming!and!inverse!dialect! dictionary!of!Saarbrucken!(Saarbrücker!rückläufiges!Wörterbuch:!Reimwörterbuch!und! Rückläufiges! Wörterbuch! der! Saarbrücker! Mundart,$ 1986)$ or$ E.$ Braun’s$ Homonym! dictionary! of! Saarbrucken! (Saarbrücker! Homonymwörterbuch,$ 1989),$ where$ there$ were$German$pairs$of$homonyms$of$articles,$substantives,$pronouns,$adjectives,$verbs,$ adverbs,$ prepositions,$ conjunctions$ and$ interjections$ (Braun$ 1989:$ 13/92).$ The$ experience$of$creation$of$this$dictionary$is$adoptable$and$continual$in$Latvia.$$ The$non$academic$or$popular$science$dialect$dictionaries$are$common$in$dialect$ lexicography.$ This$ dictionary$ formation$ method$ can$ be$ developed$ also$ in$ Latvian$ dialect$ lexicography$ (about$ popular$ science$ type$ dialect$ dictionary$ in$ Latvian$ lexicography$ mentioned$ before).$ As$ 21st$ century$ demands$ that$ the$ necessary$ information$ for$ every$ person$ would$ be$ given$ as$ fast$ as$ possible,$ making$ readers$ interested$ and$ getting$ their$ attention,$ this$ dictionary$ type$ is$ possible$ to$ be$ created,$ with$ many$ thanks$ to$ the$ speakers$ of$ local$ dialects$ −$ enthusiasts,$ because$ such$ type$ dictionaries$ might$ not$ have$ such$ strict$ regulated$ formation,$ principles,$ because$ their$ main$task$is$the$fixation$of$lexeme.$But$it$does$not$mean$that$their$meaning$would$be$ less$ important,$ on$ the$ contrary$ −$ with$ its$ simplicity$ it$ could$ be$ more$ preferable$ for$ readers.$$ 137$ ©Universitat de Barcelona

Liene!MARKUS)NARVILA!

The$ importance$ of$ these$ dictionaries$ is$ proven$ by$ its$ rather$ big$ amount$ of$ foreign$ lexicography,$ comp.,$ for$ example,$ dictionaries:$ South! Tyrol)! German! lexicon.! Dictionary!and!supplementary!aid!in!transaction!for!foreigners,!tourists!and!immigrants$ (Lexikon! Südtirolerisch)deutsch.! Wörterbuch! und! Übersetzungshilfe! für! Fremde,! Touristen! und! Zugereiste! ausgewählt! und! mit! Zeichnungen! von! Hanspeter! Demetz,$ 1999),$and$it$its$introduction$it$is$mentioned$that:$“it$is$not$scientific$dictionary.$It$is$as$ research$move$through$our$word$stock,$which$is$originated$from$our$own$word$stock,$ accidentally$heard$on$the$streets$and$pubs,$created$from$jargon$spoken$by$youth$and$ acquaintances$ [...]”$ (Demetz$ 1999:$6);$ H.$ Prünster’s$ Are! you! God! blessed?! My! Tyrol! dictionary.!A!cheerful!guide!into!South!Tyrol!dialect!(Griaß!di?!Mein!Tiroler!Wörterbuch.! Lustiger! Sprachführer! der! Tiroler! Mundart,$ 2003),$ where$ the$ translation$ part$ is$ supplemented$ by$ peculiar$ caricatures,$ attracting$ reader’s$ attention,$ as$ well$ as$ with$ additional$ information$ about$ Tyrolean$ dialect$ grammar,$ practical$ expressions$ and$ so$ on$ (more$ Prinster$ 2003:$ 5/49);$ similarly$ created$ is$ H.$ Bruckner’s$ From! A! to! Z! in! the! dialect! of! Must! Quarter! (Most! Viertel).! The! Western! and! middle! dialect! of! Lower! Austria! (Mostviertlerisch! von! A! bis! Z.! Mundart! aus! dem! westlichen! und! mitleren! Niederösterreich,$1999),$in:$“The$speed$in$which$our$native$language$is$disappearing$is$ scary.$This$book$is$(most$probably$unlucky)$a$try$to$resist$this$fashion$and$our$dialect$to$ be$put$in$all$mouths.$At$least$in$this$book$it$should$be$preserved”$(Bruckner$1999,$4.$ Cover).$ As$Latvian$language$dialect$network$is$small,$also$the$amount$of$people$speaking$ them$is$relatively$small,$this$kind$of$popular$science$dictionary$elaboration$should$help$ to$maintain$the$interest$about$local$dialect,$it$also$would$be$valuable$historic$evidence$ for$next$generations.$$ In$foreign$dialect$lexicography$attention$is$paid$to$elaboration$of$dictionaries$or$ digitalization$ of$ already$ existing$ dictionaries,$ where$ there$ are$ active$ work$ by$ for$ example,$university$staff$of$Trier,$who$are$realising$project$The!digital!compilation!of! dialect! dictionary! (more:$ http://germazope.uni/trier.de/Projekte/DWV).$ Also$ in$ Latvia$ the$digitalization$of$dictionaries$in$an$actual$issue$in$website$www.tezaurs.lv$there$are$ several$ digitalized$ dictionaries,$ but$ none$ of$ them$ are$ dialect$ dictionaries$ $ (about$ electronic$ Latvian)Latgalian! dictionary! mentioned$ before),$ that$ is$ why$ this$ process$ is$

138$ ©Universitat de Barcelona

Dialectologia.!Special-issue,-IV-(2013),!123)145.!! ISSN:!2013)2247!

preferably$actualized,$because$it$is$what$way$dictionaries$would$be$available$for$wider$ amount$of$people$who$are$interested.$$ Not$always$it$can$be$unequivocally$said$what$type$of$dictionary$should$be$better$ created,$for$example,$E.$Kagaine$points$out$that$“the$choice$of$dictionary$type$is$set$by$ objective$factors$[...],$as$well$as$known$subjective$considerations$[...].$For$example,$if$ [...]$ is$ rather$ broad$ material$ and$ the$ idea$ is$ to$ more$ or$ less$ generally$ characterize$ dialect$lexicon,$semantics,$then$[...]$appropriate$could$be$non/differential$dictionary$on$ the$ other$ hand,$ if$ this$ project$ is$ connected$ mostly$ with$ revelation$ of$ dialect$ peculiarities,$then$[...]$appropriate$could$be$differential$dictionary,$if$$material$amount$ is$rather$small,$limited,$meaning$and$use$explanations$[...]”$(Kagaine$2005c:$322)$ Of$course$in$foreign$dialect$lexicography$there$is$prepared$many$more$different$ interesting$dictionaries$that$attract$information:$there$is$a$Russian$linguistics$dialectal! historic!dictionaries,$for$example,$G.$$Hristosenko$(Г.$Христосенко)$un$L.$Lubimova’s$(Л.$ Любимова)$ created$ dictionaries$ Materials! for! regional! historic! business)like! documents! of! 17th)18th! century! of! Nercinska! (Материалы! для! регионального! исторического!словаря!Нерчинских!деловых!документов!XVII)XVIII!вв,!1997/1998),$ Dictionary! of! Russian! (nation)! dialect! of! Siberia! in! the! first! half! of! 17th)18th! century! (Региональный!исторический!словарь!нерчинских!деловых!документов!XVII)XVIII! вв,! 1997/1998)$ which$ would$ be$ possible$ to$ develop$ also$ in$ Latvia’s$ lexicography,$ in$ dialect$ dictionaries$ including$ already$ issued$ dialect$ text$ and$ description$ excerpts,$ as$ well$ as$ dictionary$ materials$ of$ earlier$ times$ (K.$Mīlenbahs$ and$ J.$ Endzelīns! Latvian! language!dictionary!and$other$materials);$rather$often$also$belief!(religious!belonging)! is$a$feature$that$was$put$as$a$I.$Grek/Pabisowa$un$I.$Maryniakowa’s$created$dictionary$ The! dialect! dictionary! of$ old! believers! living! in! Poland$ (Słownik! gwary! starowierców! mieszkąjących! w! Polsce,$ 1980),$ similar$ dictionary$ was$ also$ created$ in$ Russian$ dialect$ lexicography:$ Dialect! dictionary! of! Transbaikal! region! (Словарь! говоров! старообрядцев! (семейcких)! Забайкалья,$ 1999),$ which$ is$ a$ differential$ type$ explanatory$ dictionary$ with$ about$ 8000$ explained$ lexemes$ (including$ variants),$ the$ specifics$of$dictionaries$contains$word$thematic$group,$which$is$rarely$met$in$different$ dictionaries$ or$ is$ not$ reflected$ in$ those,$ for$ example,$ the$ lexicon$ of$ religion$ or$ cult$ sphere.$Whereas$words$that$are$directly$connected$to$old$believers$uniqueness$is$10%$ 139$ ©Universitat de Barcelona

Liene!MARKUS)NARVILA!

of$total$amount$of$the$existing$word$amount$(Журавлев$2001b:$259,$Коготкова$2000);$ there$ are$ also$ dialect$ dictionaries$ which$ in! the! basis! of! research! region! is! some! important!object!such$as$under$the$guidance$of$A.$Gerda$Seliger:!materials!in!Russian! dialectology.! The! dictionary! (:$ Материалы! по! русской! диалектологии:! Словарь,$ 2003/2007).$ Seliger$ –$ they$ are$ 23$ lakes,$ 165$ islands,$ tens$ of$ bays,$ branches$ of$ rivers$ and$ water$ territory;$ this$ region$ not$ once$ has$ attracted$ the$ attention$ of$ linguists$ and$ researchers$ of$ local$ history$ (there$ were$ descriptions,$ linguistic$ atlas,$ archaeological$ and$anthropologic$researches$created,$about$it$Селигер...$2003:$3/4).$ As$ it$ was$ mentioned$ before$ one$ of$ the$ most$ important$ tasks$ of$ Latvian$ lexicography$is$to$create$joint$dialect$dictionary,$the$work$of$which$has$already$begun$ in$ 2005,$ but$ in$ future$ in$ Latvian$ dialect$ lexicography$ also$ the$ dialect$ groups$ or$ one$ dialect$lexicon$aggregation$in$dictionary$should$be$developed$and$strengthened.$$ It$ is$ to$ be$ taken$ into$ consideration$ for$ example,$ the$ experience$ of$ Lithuania,$ where$there$are$regularly$created$dictionaries,$that$contains$separate$dialect$groups$or$ only$ some$ dialects,$ comparing$ V.$ Vitkauskas’$ Dialect! dictionary! of! North! dunininki$ (Šiaurės! rytų! dūnininkų! šnektų! žodynas,1976),$ which$ is$ the$ first$ dialect$ dictionary$ issued$ in$ Lithuania$ (Jakaitienė$ 2005,$ 116);$ in$ 2005$ there$ was$ a$ Dialect! dictionary! of! Dieveniski! (Dieveniškių! šnektos! žodynas,$ 2005)$ by$ L.$Grumadienė,$ D.$ Mikulėnienė,$ K.$Morkūnas,$A.$Vidugiris$and$others.$ $ $ 4.!Conclusion$ $ As$it$can$be$according$to$the$examined$dictionary$material,$dialect$dictionary$can$ be$different$in$quantity$and$in$qualitative$way$the$peculiarity$of$dialect$dictionaries$is$ that$ in$ them$ not$ always$ the$ most$ important$ is$ the$ quality$ or$ scientific$ quality$ or$ precision;$ lexicographer$ has$ to$ create$ them$ so$ that$ the$ dictionaries$ are$ interesting,$ exciting$ and$ can$ attract$ the$ attention$ of$ readers.$ It$ is$ also$ not$ possible$ to$ talk$ about$ common$ access$ in$ the$ creation$ of$ dialect$ dictionary,$ because$ the$ work$ at$ dialect$ dictionary$is$process$full$of$research$and$findings$that$is$why$the$author$can$approach$ each$new$dictionary$in$a$creative$way,$because$also$E.$Wandl/Vogt$points$out$that$the$

140$ ©Universitat de Barcelona

Dialectologia.!Special-issue,-IV-(2013),!123)145.!! ISSN:!2013)2247!

most$essential$that$is$necessary$for$the$elaboration$of$dialect$dictionaries,$is$“patience,$ intuition$and$creativity”$(Wandl/Vogt$2009:$10).$Mainly$each$dictionary$should$aspire$ to$ the$ users$ of$ given$ dialect,$ it$ should$ fill$ him$ with$ the$ understanding$ about$ how$ important$and$peculiar$is$his$spoken$dialect,$that$he/she$should$not$be$ashamed$of$it,$ but$to$be$proud.$ ! $ References! $ ĀDAMSONS,$ E.,$ E.$ KAGAINE$ (2000,$ I/2000,$ II)$ Vainižu! izloksnes! vārdnīca,$ 1/2$ sējums,$ Rīga:$ LU$ Latviešu$valodas$institūts.$ “Bayern$als$Vorreiter$–$Prasch,$Schmeller$und$deren$Wörterbücher$des$Bayerischen$Dialekts“$ (1997/98),$ Goggolori.! Aus! der! Werkstatt! des! Bayerischen! Wörterbuchs,! Nr.! 1,$ S.$ 6/7.$ .$$ BRAUN,$ E.$ (1989)$ Saarbrücker! Homonymwörterbuch,$ Saarbrücken:$ Saarbrücker$ Druckerei$ und$ Verlag,$373$p.!$ BRUCKNER,$ H.$ (1999)$ Mostviertlerisch! von! A! bis! Z.! Mundart! aus! dem! westlichen! und! mitleren! Niederösterreich,!Tausend:$Eigenverlag:$Hubert$Bruckner,$183$p.$ BUŠMANE,$ B.$ (2005)$ „Homonīmi$ „Latviešu$ izlokšņu$ vārdnīcā””,$ in$ E.$ Kagaine$ et! al.,$ Latviešu! izlokšņu!vārdnīca.!Prospekts,$Rīga:$LU$Latviešu$valodas$institūts,$334/347.$ BUŠMANE,$ B.,$ DZ.$ HIRŠA$ et! al.,$ (2009)$ „Valoda$ un$ vide“,$ in$ Letonikas! trešā! kongresa! zinātniskie! raksti,!Rīga:$Latvijas$Zinātņu$akadēmija,$149/177.$$ DEMETZ,$ H.$ (1999)$ Lexikon! Südtirolerisch)deutsch.! Wörterbuch! und! Übersetzungshilfe! für! Fremde,! Touristen! und! Zugereiste! ausgewählt! und! mit! Zeichnungen! von! Hanspeter! Demetz,$Bozen:$Edition$Raetia,$118$p.$ DIETRICH,$ M.$ (1975)$ „Dialektwörterbücher$ –$ wozu?“,$ Der! Sprachdienst.! 18.! Jahrgang,! 1974.! Wiesbaden:$Gesellschaft$für$deutsche$Sprache,$73/76.$ DRAVIŅŠ,$ K.$ (2010)$ Stendes! izloksnes! vārdu! krājums! –! Wortschatz! der! Mundart! von! Stenden.$ Kārļa$ Draviņa$ vācu$ valodā$ rakstīto$ manuskriptu$ papildinājuši$ un$ rediģējuši$ Brigita$ Bušmane$un$Agris$Timuška,$Rīga:$LU$Latviešu$valodas$institūts,$XXXV$+$743$p.$ FRIEBERTSHÄUSER,$

H.$

(1976)$

„Relevante$

Aspekte$

der$

Dialektlexikographie“,$

in$

Dialektlexikographie:!Berichte!über!Stand!und!Methoden!deutscher!Dialektwörterbücher.!

141$ ©Universitat de Barcelona

Liene!MARKUS)NARVILA!

Festgabe!für!Luise!Berthold!zum!85!Geburtstag!am!27.1.1976,!Wiesbaden:$Franz$Steiner$ Verlag,$5/10.$ GRABIS,$R.$(1979)$„Viena$novada$valodas$bagātās$tīnes”,$Karogs,$11,$172/175.$ GRĪNBERGS,$U.$&$L.$REITERE$(2010)$Īs!ventiņ!gramatik!un!vārdnic!jeb!bliņķs!ventiņmēle,$Ventspils:$ SIA$„Resintro”,$48$p.$ HALLER,$ H.$ &$ F.$ LANTHALER$ (2004)$ Passeier! Wörterbuch.! Wörter)Ausdrücke)Beispiele.! Über! 8000! Passeier! Wörter! von! aa- was! bis! zwui! mit! der! Übersetzung! ins! Hochdeutsche,$ Passeier:$ Verlag$Passeier,$280$p.$ HIRŠA,$DZ.$(2007)$„Ceļā$uz$valodas$nākotni“,$Kultūras!Forums,$2007.$gada$7/14.$septembris,$Nr.$ 35,$2.$ JAKAITIENĖ,$E.$(2005)$Leksikografija,$Vilnius:$Mokslo$ir$enciklopedijų$leidybos$institutas,$324$p.$ JANSONE,$ I.$ (2003)$ „Entwicklung$ der$ lettischen$ Lexikographie$ von$ G.$Mancelius$ bis$ zu$ elektronischen$ Wörterbücher“,$ Zeitschrift! für! Literaturwissenschaft! und! Linguistik! (Sonderausdruck).$Heft$129,$Jahrgang$123,$Siegen:$J.$B.$Metzler$Verlag,$64/95.$$ JANSONE,$ I.$ (2005)$ „Varianti$ izlokšņu$ vārdnīcās:$ problēmas$ un$ risinājumi”,$ in$ E.$ Kagaine$ et! al.,$ Latviešu!izlokšņu!vārdnīca.!Prospekts,$Rīga$:$LU$Latviešu$valodas$institūts,$347/351.$ KAGAINE,$ E.$ (1985)$ „Apvienotās$ latviešu$ izlokšņu$ vārdnīcas$ veidošanas$ problēmas“,$ in$ Valodas! aktualitātes!1984,$Rīga:$Zinātne,$64/86.$ KAGAINE,$ E.$ (1999)$ „Izlokšņu$ vārdnīcas$ un$ to$ loma$ vēsturiskajā$ valodniecībā“,$ in$ Vārds! un! tā! pētīšanas!aspekti:!Rakstu!krājums!3,$Liepāja:$LPA,$65/75.$ KAGAINE,$ E.$ et! al.$ (2005a)$ Latviešu! izlokšņu! vārdnīca.! Prospekts,$ Rīga:$ LU$ Latviešu$ valodas$ institūts,$359$p.$ KAGAINE,$E.$(2005b)$„Vārdu$cilmes$norādes$dialektālajās$vārdnīcās”,$in$E.$Kagaine$et!al.,$Latviešu! izlokšņu!vārdnīca.!Prospekts,$Rīga:$LU$Latviešu$valodas$institūts,$325/333.$ KAGAINE,$E.$(2005c)$„Semantiskā$aspekta$loma$izlokšņu$vārdnīcu$tipa$izvēlē“,$in$E.$Kagaine$et!al.,$ Latviešu!izlokšņu!vārdnīca.!Prospekts,$Rīga:$LU$Latviešu$valodas$institūts,$315/321.$ KAGAINE,$E.$&$S.$RAĢE$(1977/1983)$Ērģemes!izloksnes!vārdnīca,$1/3.$sējums,$Rīga:$Zinātne.$ KĻAVIŅA,$S.$(2008)$Latviešu!valodas!pētnieki.!No!klaušu!laikiem!līdz!savai!valstij,$Rīga:$RaKa,$289$ p.$ KURSĪTE,$ J.$ (2007)$ Neakadēmiskā! latviešu! valodas! vārdnīca! jeb! Novadu! vārdene,! Rīga:$ Madris,$ 527$p.$ KURSĪTE,$ J.$ (2009)$ Tautlietu! vārdene,$ Rīga:$ Nemateriālās$ kultūras$ mantojuma$ valsts$ aģentūra,$ 559$p.$

142$ ©Universitat de Barcelona

Dialectologia.!Special-issue,-IV-(2013),!123)145.!! ISSN:!2013)2247!

LAUMANE,$ B.$ (2004)$ „Recenzija:$ Е.$ Е.$ Королëва.$ Диалектный$ словарь$ одной$ семьи”,$ in$ Linguistica!Lettica,!13,$Rīga:$LU$Latviešu$valodas$institūts,$199/205.$ LÖFFLER,$H.!(2009)!Dialektologie.!Eine!Einführung,!Günter$Narr$Verlag,$158$p.$ MAGAZEINS,$I.$(2011)$„Divos$ar$pusi$vārdos$par$V.$Lukaševiča$etnogrāfiska$novada$neakadēmisko$ vuordineicu”,$in$V.$Lukaševičs,$Latgaliešu)latviešu!vārdnīca.!Vīna!cylvāka!specvuorduojs,! Daugavpils:$Daugavpils$Universitātes$Akadēmiskais$apgāds$„Saule”,$15/21.$ MARKUS/NARVILA,$ L.$ (2008)$ „Rucavas$ izloksnes$ vārdnīcas$ šķirkļa$ vārdu$ atlases$ principi$ un$ kritēriji”,$ in$ Letonikas! otrais! kongress.! Kurzemes! novada! kultūrvēsturiskais! mantojums,! tā!izpēte!un!saglabāšana.!Liepāja$:$LiePA,$146/174$p.$ MARKUS/NARVILA,$ L.$ (2011)$ Rucavas! izloksnes! ! vārdnīca:! leksikogrāfiskais! un! leksiskais! aspekts.$ Promocijas$darbs$filoloģijas$doktora$grāda$iegūšanai$valodniecības$nozares$diahroniskās$ valodniecības$apakšnozarē.$Liepāja,$294$p.$ $.$ MARKUS/NARVILA,$ L.$(2012)$„Cittautu$pieredze$kā$impulss$latviešu$dialektālajā$leksikogrāfijā”,$in$ Valodas!prakse:!vērojumi!un!ieteikumi,$Rīga:$Latviešu$valodas$aģentūra,$107/130.$ NIEBAUM,$H.$(1979)$„Deutsche$Dialektwörterbücher”,$Deutsche!Sprache.$Zeitschrift$für$Theorie,$ Praxis,$Dokumentation.$7.$Jahrgang,$1979,$Berlin:$Erich$Schmidt$Verlag,$345/373.$ Prünster,$ H.$ (2003)$ Griaß! di?! Mein! Tiroler! Wörterbuch.! Lustiger! Sprachführer! der! Tiroler! Mundart,$Amstetten:$Verlag$66,$240$p.$ PUTNIŅA,$ M.,$ TIMUŠKA,$ A.$ (2001)$ Sinoles! izloksnes! salīdzinājumu! vārdnīca,$ Rīga:$ LU$ Latviešu$ valodas$institūts,$294$p.$ REĶĒNA,$ A.$ (1978)$ „Ērģemes$ izloksnes$ vārdnīca”,$ in$ Latviešu! valodas! kultūras! jautājumi,! Rīga:$ Liesma,$217/223.$ REĶĒNA,$ A.$ (1998,$ I–1998,$ II)$ Kalupes! izloksnes! vārdnīca,$ 1/2.$ sējums,$ Rīga:$ Latviešu$ valodas$ institūts.$ ROZE,$L.$(1982)$Pasaule!vārdnīcas!skatījumā,$Rīga:$Zinātne,$120$p.$ SKUJIŅA,$ V.$u.$c.!(2007)$Valodniecības!pamatterminu!skaidrojošā!vārdnīca,$Rīga:$Valsts$valodas$ aģentūra,$623$p.$ TIMUŠKA,$A.$(1997)$„Dialektālu$aspekta$vārdnīcu$izveides$aktuālas$problēmas”,$in$Leksikogrāfijas! teorija! un! prakse.! Akadēmiķa! Jāņa! Endzelīna! 124.! dzimšanas! dienas! atceres! zinātniskās! konferences!tēzes.$1997.$gada$20.$februāris,$$Rīga:$Latviešu$valodas$institūts,$34/35.$ WANDL/VOGT,$ E.$ (2009)$ „So$ Entsteht$ ein$ Dialektwörterbuch“,$ Thema.$ Das! Forschungsmagazin! der!ÖAW,$Nr.$3,$10/11.$

143$ ©Universitat de Barcelona

Liene!MARKUS)NARVILA!

ZEMZARE,$D.$(1961)$Latviešu!vārdnīcas$(līdz!1900.!gadam),$Rīga:$Latvijas$PSR$Zinātņu$Akadēmijas$ izdevniecība,$560$p.$ ZILLER,$L.$(1979)$Was!nicht!in!Duden!steht.!Ein!Salzburger!Mundart)Wörterbuch!von!Leopold! Ziller,!Salzburg:$Gesellschaft$für$Salzburger$Landeskunde,$206$p.$ АНАНЬЕВА,$ Н.$ (2006)$ „Лексика$ польских$ говоров$ восточнославянского$ и$ балтийского$ пограничья$ в$ лексикографическом$ аспекте”,$ in$ Proceeding! of! the! 4th! International! Congress!of!Dialectologists!and!Geolinguists,$Riga:$Latvian$Language$Institute,$University$ of$Latvia,$9/16.$ БОГАТОВА,$ Г.$ А.$ (1998)$ „Размышления$ после$ международного$ съезда$ русистов$ в$ Красноярске”,$Вопросы!языкознания,$3,$115/122.$ БРЫСИНА,$ Е.$ (2005)$ „Диалектный$ словарь$ как$ форма$ отражения$ языковой$ картины$ мира$ диалектоносителей”,$in$Международный!сборник!научных!трудов:!Материалы!по! русско)славянскому!языкознанию.$Воронеж$:$ВГУ,$104/110.$ ДЕМИДОВА,$ К.$ И.$ (1986)$ Системный! словарь! предметно)обиходный! лексики! говоров! Талицкого!

района!

Свердловской!

области.$

Свердловск:$

Свердловский$

государственный$педагогический$институт,$103$p.$ Диалектные!(областные)!словари!.$ ЖУРАВЛЕВ,$ А.$ Ф.$ (2001a)$ „Рецензия:$ А.$ Е.$ Аникин$ Этимологический$ словарь$ русских$ диалектов$ Сибири.$ Заимствования$ из$ уральских,$ алтайских$ и$ палеоазиатских$ языков”,$in$Русский!язык!в!научном!освещении$No.!2.!К!200)летию!со!дня!рождения! В.!И.!Даля,!Москва$:-Институт$русского$языка$им.$В.$В.$Виноградова$РАН,$250/256.$ ЖУРАВЛЕВ,$ А.$ Ф.$ $ (2001b)$ „Рецензия:$ Словарь$ говоров$ старообрядцев$ (семейских)$ Забайкалья”,$ in$ Русский! язык! в! научном! освещении$ No.! 2.! К! 200)летию! со! дня! рождения!В.!И.!Даля,!Москва$:-Институт$русского$языка$им.$В.$В.$Виноградова$РАН,$ 257/264.$ КАЛИТКИНА,$ Т.$ В.$ (2006)$ Диалектные! словари! как! лингвокультурологический! источник:! опыт!реконструкции!традиции!!.$$ Коготкова,$ T.$ (2000)$ „У$ истоков$ русской$ речи”,$ Наука! в! Сибири.! Еженедельная! газета! Сибирского! Отделения! Российской! Академии! Наук.! No.$ 4$ (2240)$ 28$ января$ 2000$г.$ .$ КОЛОКOЛЬЦЕВА,$

Т.$

Н.$

(2007)$

Словари!

диалектные.$

.$

144$ ©Universitat de Barcelona

Dialectologia.!Special-issue,-IV-(2013),!123)145.!! ISSN:!2013)2247!

КОРОЛËВА,$E.$E.$(1999)$„Диалектный$словарь$одной$семьи$–$словарь$нового$типа”,$in$Valoda!–! 1997.! Humanitārās! Fakultātes! VII! Zinātniskie! lasījumi.! Fonētika! un! gramatika.! Leksika,$ Daugavpils:$„Saule”,$97/108.$ КОРОЛËВА,$ E.$ E.$ (2000,$ I/2000,$ II)$ Диалектный! словарь! одной! семьи$ (Пыталовский$ район$ Псковской$области).$Вып.$1.–2.$Daugavpils:$„Saule”.$ ЛАБУНЕЦ,$ Н.$ В.$ „Диалектный$ словарь$ в$ аспекте$ региональной$ культуры”,$ in$ Язык! и! литература,!Выпуск$№$13$.$$ ΗЕФЕДОВА,$ Ε.$ Α.$ (2001)$ Экспресивный! словарь! диалектной! личности.$ Москва$ :$ Изд/во$ Моск.$ун/та,$143$p.$ ΗЕФЕДОВА,$ Е.$ А.$ (2003)$ „„Архангельский$ областной$ словарь”$ в$ типологии$ диалектных$ словарей”,$ in$ Вопросы! русского! языкознания:! Сб.! Вып.! X.! Архангельские! говоры:! Словообразование.! Лексика.! Семантика:! К! 50)летию! научной! деятельности! Осаны!Герасимовны.$Москва$:$МГУ,$15/26.$ ΗЕФЕДОВА,$ Ε.$ Α.$(2008)$Лексико)семантическое!варьирование!в!пространстве!диалекта.! А в то р е ф е р а т$диссертации$на$соискание$ученой$степени$доктора$филологических$ наук.$Москва:$51$p.$$ $ Псковский!областной!словарь!с!историческими!данными.$(1967–2008)$$Ленинград:$Изд/ во$Ленинградского$ун/та.$ Селигер:$Материалы!по!русской!диалектологии:!Словарь.$(2003–2007)$Вып.$1–3.$Санкт/ Петербург:$Изд/во$С./Петерб.$ун/та.$ Тематический!словарь!говоров!Тверской!области.!(2003–2006)$Тверь:$ТвГУ.$ Τураўскi!слоўнiк.!(1982/1987)$Том$1/5.!Минск:$Навука$i$тэхнiка.$ ФЕДОРОВ,$ A.$ И.$ и.$ д.$ (1983)! Фразеологический$ словарь! русских! говоров! Сибири.$ Новосибирск:$Наука,$236$p.$

$

145$ ©Universitat de Barcelona